ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07929584EPISEEK-MPEUpdated Nov 10, 2026

A Study to Establish the Diagnostic Value of the EPISEEK-MPE Liquid Biopsy Assay to Identify Cancer in Pleural Effusion Samples.

An observational study in Pleural Effusions, sponsored by University of Arizona. Recruiting at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-10.

Primary conditionPleural Effusion, MalignantRegistry: Pleural EffusionReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Pleural Effusion — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Pleural Effusion, Malignant
Why
  1. The study's title name Pleural Effusion, Malignant, a narrower term within Pleural Effusion.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own title. Of 46 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 72% were exactly right and 89% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 4% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by University of Arizona · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jan 2025; still recruiting 1 year 10 months later.
Updated Nov 10, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
625
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this study is to evaluate the EPISEEK-MPE laboratory test for diagnosis of malignant (cancerous) pleural effusions verses pleural effusions caused by a non-cancer condition. The study uses excess samples drained from around the lung as part of a patient's regular care. The main questions the study aims to answer are:

  1. Is the EPISEEK-MPE test reliable to detect cancer cells and aid in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions?
  2. Do age, race, gender and ethnicity change the reliability of the EPISEEK-MPE test?
  3. Can the results of the EPISEEK-MPE test predict which patients have a better chance of survival than others?

Participants will be asked to donate a small portion of the excess fluid drained from around the lung for research. Participants will also give permission to collect data from the medical records.

Read the detailed description

In clinical practice, it remains a challenge to distinguish between malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and benign pleural effusion (BPE). Because of the limitations of conventional cytology methods, there is an urgent need to develop a more accurate and effective method for the efficient diagnosis of MPE. In collaboration with the University of Arizona, Precision Epigenomics has developed the EPISEEK-MPE test that has the potential to be an effective complimentary tool for cytology in the process of differential diagnosis. The aim of this project is to conduct a multi-site clinical validation study to establish the EPISEEK-MPE test as a new commercial molecular test for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions. The study will: 1) Establish the diagnostic value of the EPISEEK_MPE liquid biopsy assay to identify cancer in pleural effusion and 2) Validate the EPISEEK-MPE liquid biopsy assay for cancer detection in pleural effusion. The long-term goal of this project is to bring the field of pathology a new diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pleural Effusions

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • pleural effusion
  • DNA methylation
  • malignant pleural effusion
  • benign pleural effusion
  • indeterminate pleural effusion
03

In context

Pleural Effusion, Malignant Reclassified

169 studies on the registry are indexed under Pleural Effusion, Malignant; 39 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 625 is above the median of 112 across 37 observational studies indexed under Pleural Effusion, Malignant.

Browse Pleural Effusion, Malignant studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Arizona is the lead sponsor of 476 studies on the registry; 88 are open to participants now.

Of its 51 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 30 (59%) have results posted.

Compared within Pleural Effusion, Malignant, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Pleural Effusion. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Adult patients that are having pleural fluid drained as part of clinical care.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Adult patients having pleural fluid drained for clinical care (thoracentesis or chest tube placement)
  • Consent to have pleural fluid sample used for research

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

- Insufficient fluid available following clinical drainage procedure

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
625 participants (estimated)
Target follow-up
1 Year
Patient registry
Yes
Biospecimen retention
Samples without dna

Groups and cohorts

  • Benign pleural effusions

    Patients with pleural effusions due to infection, heart failure, atelectasis, bronchial obstruction, pulmonary embolism, etc. To be included in the benign group, subjects cannot have any cancer-related history within the last 15 years and chest radiograph will be without evidence of lung mass / malignancy.

  • Indeterminate pleural effusions

    Patients with a known cancer diagnosis, but with cytology negative pleural fluid.

  • Malignant pleural effusions

    Patients with known cancer and a cytology positive pleural fluid sample.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic performance

    To determine the diagnostic performance characteristics of the EPISEEK-MPE test in terms of accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV).

    Time frame: From enrollment to the completion of the study analysis an average of 2 years

  2. Predictive value

    Investigators will evaluate the association of the methylation signal from the EPISEEK-MPE test with overall survival.

    Time frame: From enrollment to 1 year post procedure

  3. Validate EPISEEK-MPE

    Establish the performance specifications of EPISEEK-MPE as a laboratory developed test including: 1. Reportable range 2. Analytical sensitivity 3. Precision 4. Analytical specificity 5. Accuracy 6. Reference interval

    Time frame: From enrollment to the completion of the study analysis

Secondary outcomes

  1. Methylation signal

    Determine the methylation signal relationship with clinical variables such as age, race, gender, and ethnicity.

    Time frame: At baseline

07

Study locations

2 of 2 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — This is an exploratory study with a commercial entity and data is considered joint intellectual property.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Jan 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2026, 23 months after the start.

Of 22 observational studies under Pleural Effusion, Malignant, half reached primary completion within 27 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 44. This study's planned 23 months is below that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
May 8, 2026
First posted
Nov 10, 2026
StartActual
Jan 8, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Dec 31, 2026
CompletionEst.
May 2027
Last update
Nov 10, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Registered
First appeared on the registry. No changes since
Nov 10, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Nov 10, 2026
    First appeared on the registry

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07929584
Collaborators
Precision Epigenomics, National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Responsible party
Billie Bixby (Principal Investigator, University of Arizona) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 10, 2026
Start date
Jan 8, 2025
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
May 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Nov 10, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion